New Leica S this year?

[Speedgraphic]

Leica isn't going to do anything with the S for a looooong time. They can't even manage to release lenses for the SL. In 2018 people will start telling Leica that the 007 is way out of date and you can hope for them to ship by 2019. Meanwhile Fujifilm will have 2-3 GFX cameras and a full system of lenses, but of course Leica people will insist on spending an extra 20G on the body cause the S looks better in instagram photos. For me, I just started wet scanning and I get 60mp from 6x7 film. My $500 dollar Pentax 6x7 is working out just fine. :toocool:

 

[msadat]

leica actually has been on target rolling out sl lenses based on the schedule they released. is it a slow process? yes. s007 is a very refined camera and very capable. they just found a fix for the af motor, lens wise they have as much as hasselblad expect a long lens (300) which u can use hasselblad's with an adaptor. after saying all that, i do think that leica needs to rethink the s and a new positioning/pricing to be competitive, lens prices are ok, but imagine if they drop the body price from 17k to under 10. add some rebates for the lenses and all the sudden it's alive and thriving without any engineering cost. would they do something like this? ....


something like this will give me time to roll out new bodies and meanwhile keep the system alive, that's what i think

Leica isn't going to do anything with the S for a looooong time. They can't even manage to release lenses for the SL. In 2018 people will start telling Leica that the 007 is way out of date and you can hope for them to ship by 2019. Meanwhile Fujifilm will have 2-3 GFX cameras and a full system of lenses, but of course Leica people will insist on spending an extra 20G on the body cause the S looks better in instagram photos. For me, I just started wet scanning and I get 60mp from 6x7 film. My $500 dollar Pentax 6x7 is working out just fine. :toocool:

 

[jduncan]

i agree that they will use it but release date will be much later

Hi,
What are your basis for this?
When do you expect the sensor to be on full production?
If they do that both the Nikon and Canon will have a higher resolution than the MF mirrorless for a year or more.

Best regards,

 

[msadat]

camera industry is slowing down, it took fuji over two years to roll out x-pro 2 or x-t2 and these are low cost cameras. the gfx is about three times as much as x-t2

Hi,
What are your basis for this?
When do you expect the sensor to be on full production?
If they do that both the Nikon and Canon will have a higher resolution than the MF mirrorless for a year or more.

Best regards,

 

[fotografz]

The marketing questions raised in this thread are interesting.

I wonder how many people are projected to enter the MFD market in the next 5-8 years, verses how much the companies rely on "churning" current MFD users ... and lastly, how long can they rely on that churn as new generations move through the marketing time-line?

While the standards of excellence in image making have remained high among a certain percentage of photographers, the standard actually needed has leveled off (or even have lessened) in many key areas of photography. This is a dynamic factor at play right now ... but you would never guess it given all the hub-bub and eye-watering technical minutia discussed on the web.

The advancement of 35mm is an obvious indicator of change even here on GetDPI. Even our "founding fathers", Jack and Guy, who were extremely active and on the forefront of MFD activity, are more-or-less 35mm based now (as far as I know). Personally, I worked with two MFD cameras culminating with a Multi-Shot back and H4D/60 producing many years of commercial work ... and I still use a Leica S(006). However, I honestly can say that there is very little work that my Sony A7R-II is not capable of doing. I see the difference between the Leica and Sony files, but frankly, I cannot charge a penny more for work done by one over the other.

(Service issues aside), I'd say that the Leica S proved to be a revolutionary camera for my applications ... I cannot recall a single instance where resolution was an issue personally or professionally. Would I like 80 meg? Sure. However, I agree that it would severely alter one attribute of the current 38mg S cameras ... their hand-held, spontaneous feel. A modest evolution like 50 or at most 60mg seems more likely.

Pure speculation: I wonder whether Leica will take the S into mirror-less territory ... seems like an opportunity to churn current S owners with a fortune invested in lenses. Could a 50 or 60mg large sensor in a mirror-less S format be a natural step from the SL? Would such a camera draw in new buyers?

While mirror-less seems to be serving as a boost and offers some additional potential for both 35mm, and now MFD ... it poses the question ... for how long?

- Marc

 

[JorisV]

leica actually has been on target rolling out sl lenses based on the schedule they released. is it a slow process? yes.

Kind of... I put myself on a pre-order list for the 50mm in August of 2016... I am still waiting on my lens...

Technically speaking though probably the first handful of lenses were delivered on schedule somewhere in Europe...

If all goes according to schedule it will take Leica 2.5 years to deliver a 35mm prime... with no 21mm prime or 28mm prime scheduled yet...

With all due respect "slow" is not the appropriate word...

 

[msadat]

i am in usa and plenty of dealers got the sl 50mm including popflash. it also showed up on ebay. so it was out there. i really don't know why it takes so long for leica to roll out lenses knowing that a successful system needs lenses.

leica is the only company i know who's got the entire range of cameras, from p&s, aps, full frame, rangefinder, medium format, may be they are spread to thin

Kind of... I put myself on a pre-order list for the 50mm in August of 2016... I am still waiting on my lens...

Technically speaking though probably the first handful of lenses were delivered on schedule somewhere in Europe...

If all goes according to schedule it will take Leica 2.5 years to deliver a 35mm prime... with no 21mm prime or 28mm prime scheduled yet...

With all due respect "slow" is not the appropriate word...

 

[JorisV]

i am in usa and plenty of dealers got the sl 50mm including popflash. it also showed up on ebay. so it was out there.

I am sure that a few trickled down to the US but nobody has it in stock...

Leica is still very M-centric and the success of the M10 will delay SL lenses further and I would be very surprised if we saw a new S (or a new T or something else for that matter) this year...

I am sure they might make a few announcements this year but deliver nope... they already can't keep up with the M10, why would they...?

 

[tjv]

If the S goes mirrorless, do you think they'll simply drop the mirror and keep the flange distance the same in order to appease people with many S lenses, or do you think they'd more likely go smaller, thinner body with a range of adaptors for backwards compatibility? THe latter would also mean a complete new line of lenses...

 

[erlingmm]

If the S goes mirrorless, do you think they'll simply drop the mirror and keep the flange distance the same in order to appease people with many S lenses, or do you think they'd more likely go smaller, thinner body with a range of adaptors for backwards compatibility? THe latter would also mean a complete new line of lenses...

I think this speculation contains all the arguments against itself.

 

[fotografz]

If the S goes mirrorless, do you think they'll simply drop the mirror and keep the flange distance the same in order to appease people with many S lenses, or do you think they'd more likely go smaller, thinner body with a range of adaptors for backwards compatibility? THe latter would also mean a complete new line of lenses...

On the surface it would seem to be an argument against itself ... but that hasn't stopped anyone else, including Leica. Hasselblad went mirrorless and offers an adapter for HC/HCD SLR lenses. Sony went mirrorless and offered a couple of adapter choices for A mount DSLR/SLT lenses or Minolta SLR lenses. Leica went mirrorless 35mm with the SL and offers a R mount SLR to Mirrorless adapter, and a S adapter. Why would a mirrorless S camera be any different?

From a marketing perspective it introduces a new wave of buyers to spend hefty amounts of cash on new lenses while appeasing current S owners with adapters to eventually transition to mirrorless.

So, my bet would be a thinner more streamlined body and an adapter to use current S lenses.

- Marc

 

[glenerrolrd]

I sure hope they don t change the form at all . The S system is the best all around camera body I ve used matched to the best set of lenses . I don t want the body smaller or even lighter . The viewfinder is terrific ...I can see almost exactly the point of focus ...I don t want an EVF .

What I would like is a slightly larger and better sensor coupled to improved firmware . Modern AF capabilities would be a large improvement .

Its service and support that has let the user base down ...not the capabilities of the system .

Leica needs to keep improving the S while retaining the strengths it already has . :clap:

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Mirroless has some advantages, when properly done:

• Moving mirror is eliminated, thus a major source of vibration is wiped out.
• Focusing should be pinpoint accurate, as the sensor itself is used for focusing.
• Reaction times can be very fast.

But, proper sensor technology is needed for a well working mirrorless system. There are at least two key technologies that need to be implemented in the sensor:

• On sensor PDAF, is needed for focusing speed.PDAF locates correct focus and contrast detection refines it.
• Electronic First Shutter Curtain is needed on focal plane cameras. Available sensor technology does not support global shutter. With leaf shutter that may not be a great problem. But, without EFCS the shutter needs to close before exposure, which causes vibrations and significant delay. Releasing the shutter causes more vibrations. With EFCS the mechanical shutter just terminates exposure. Closure occurs at end of the exposure, so any vibration caused by the mechanical shutter affects only the last part of exposure.

The Fuji GFX has EFCS and the X1D has leaf shutter. Neither has PDAF, making focusing relatively slow.

This was demonstrated by the Sony A7R vs. the Sony A7rII. With the A7R Sony just slapped their high resolution sensor into the A7 body. That sensor had neither PDAF or EFCS. Lack of EFCS reduced resolution at medium shutter speeds to A7 levels and focusing on the A7r was slow.

The A7rII was clearly generation two. The new sensor has PDAF and AF-speed has been much improved. EFCS eliminates the vibration problem.

That is really saying that would Leica take the mirrorless route, they may need to wait until they have a good sensor. I understand that Panasonic is the major technology partner of Leica and I would presume that it is one of the reasons that Leica buys sensor from TowerJazz, which is a Panasonic company.

I would guess that the Leica S serves those users who are happy with it well. It is relatively compact for a MFD camera and it is weather proof.
I have just played with it for a few minutes, and it didn't klick for me, but I wouldn't be able to build an opinion about a camera using it a short time.

Being a slow photographer, I feel that if accurate focus is achieveable and the camera handles vibrations, it will probably be able of taking great images if paired with a good lens, a tripod and a good subject.

Regarding megapixels, I would suggest that the benefits of high resolution are that it will keep artefacts down. Now, the artefact that is far most noticeable is colour moiré. If wee don't see moiré and don't print large, increasing megapixels may be of little benefit. Just as an example, three years ago I started shooting with a 39 MP P45+ back. At my normal print size (A2) I couldn't see a benefit from the larger format and 39 vs. 24 MP. Colour moiré was a significant problem, though.

One may ask, why is moiré such a problem for me?

• I don't want it, it may be it does not show in prints, but I don't want it anyway.
• Subject matters do matter. I like shooting seashore, rippled water and sailboat rigs are about the worst offenders regarding moiré.
• I shoot quite carefully. Mostly tripod, focus using a loupe, use medium apertures, mirror lock up and a cable release. So I try to maximise image quality and that gives more conditions for aliasing.

Best regards
Erik

On the surface it would seem to be an argument against itself ... but that hasn't stopped anyone else, including Leica. Hasselblad went mirrorless and offers an adapter for HC/HCD SLR lenses. Sony went mirrorless and offered a couple of adapter choices for A mount DSLR/SLT lenses or Minolta SLR lenses. Leica went mirrorless 35mm with the SL and offers a R mount SLR to Mirrorless adapter, and a S adapter. Why would a mirrorless S camera be any different?

From a marketing perspective it introduces a new wave of buyers to spend hefty amounts of cash on new lenses while appeasing current S owners with adapters to eventually transition to mirrorless.

So, my bet would be a thinner more streamlined body and an adapter to use current S lenses.

- Marc

 

[Bernard]

Hi,

Mirroless has some advantages, when properly done:

• Moving mirror is eliminated, thus a major source of vibration is wiped out.
• Focusing should be pinpoint accurate, as the sensor itself is used for focusing.
• Reaction times can be very fast.

Moving mirror is eliminated, thus a major source of vibration is wiped out.
That's an engineering issue, not a mirror-vs-mirrorless issue. I have read more complaints about vibration on mirrorless cameras in the past few years than I have about SLRs. That's probably because SLRs have used counterweighted mirror mechanisms for 50+ years, cancelling-out vibration. Light-weight mirrorless cameras with high-speed shutters are relatively new, and some went to market with poorly-engineered shutters.
EFC is an attempt to cure this fault through electronic rather than mechanical means, which is cheaper at high production volumes. I don't think it is a "must-have" feature unless you need very high shutter speeds (1/16000s or more).

Focusing should be pinpoint accurate, as the sensor itself is used for focusing
That's live-view, which is available on SLR and mirrorless cameras. Some of the older CCD sensors did not offer this, but almost every current sensor does.

Reaction times can be very fast
Also an engineering issue. Few if any digital cameras are as fast as my old Contax RTS was (20 ms reaction time). Even the fastest A7 is slower (23 ms according to a web search), so the mirror is not yet a limiting factor.

The mirror-vs-mirrorless debate is not very relevant any more. Every SLR offers live-view these days, so you can have on-sensor focusing when you need it. The main issue is user preference.

I would not be surprised to find-out that most serious photographers use both types of cameras.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I wouldn't be sure:

• Why would SLRs have a mirror lock up if it was not an issue
• Check measured data for Canon 5DsR, below. With the 5DsR Canon has done a lot to reduce mirror vibration, among other things it is motor drven and not spring driven.

5DS R Motion blur impact on MTF for 3 shooting modes

Regarding release lag, the Canon 1DXII seems to have 0.54s: Canon 1DX Mark II Review - Performance

The article above notes that the 1DXII has a "Shortened" shutter release lag option which is rated at 36 milliseconds by Canon", but that was not tested.

Later Hasselblad models have variable shutter delay.

Regarding focusing accuracy, live view allows for manual focus. A DSLR would normally use two moving mirrors for focusing, one is the main mirror and the other one is a relay mirror sitting on the back side of the main mirror. The AF-sensor is a separate assembly sitting below the mirror box.

So, for optimal focus the two mirrors and the AF-device needs to be in good alignment with the sensor. For manual focusing the ground glass also needs good alignment. Adding to that, AF is normally not as accurate as contrast detecting AF.

A mirrorless camera will always use contrast detect AF, but it can be assisted by on sensor PDAF.

Still, it has been shown that at least the Fuji GFX has some demonstrable issues with accurate AF, at least in some cases.

There are not that much in depth test reports on Leica S. Some testers/users have reported significant problems, but it is hard to reliably say if those are sample/usage issues or systematic problems.

Best regards
Erik

Moving mirror is eliminated, thus a major source of vibration is wiped out.
That's an engineering issue, not a mirror-vs-mirrorless issue. I have read more complaints about vibration on mirrorless cameras in the past few years than I have about SLRs. That's probably because SLRs have used counterweighted mirror mechanisms for 50+ years, cancelling-out vibration. Light-weight mirrorless cameras with high-speed shutters are relatively new, and some went to market with poorly-engineered shutters.
EFC is an attempt to cure this fault through electronic rather than mechanical means, which is cheaper at high production volumes. I don't think it is a "must-have" feature unless you need very high shutter speeds (1/16000s or more).

Focusing should be pinpoint accurate, as the sensor itself is used for focusing
That's live-view, which is available on SLR and mirrorless cameras. Some of the older CCD sensors did not offer this, but almost every current sensor does.

Reaction times can be very fast
Also an engineering issue. Few if any digital cameras are as fast as my old Contax RTS was (20 ms reaction time). Even the fastest A7 is slower (23 ms according to a web search), so the mirror is not yet a limiting factor.

The mirror-vs-mirrorless debate is not very relevant any more. Every SLR offers live-view these days, so you can have on-sensor focusing when you need it. The main issue is user preference.

I would not be surprised to find-out that most serious photographers use both types of cameras.

 

[glenerrolrd]

Clearly the design should reflects the anticipated usage of the target market . Personally I prefer equipment that has a tight design specification ...for example rangefinders don t do video . I also enjoy equipment that is beautifully made ...Leica ,Alpa,HB and will favor equipment I like over “Best specifications” .

The S hits the sweet spot for me when I think of travel/landscape/seascape and family . I can shoot my grandkids at the beach with a 100/2 sum micron , a little league baseball game using the 300/4.5 HB handheld and be happy with sunset at pier messing with the ND filters,tripod and a set of near perfect wide angles . . So it aligns well with my primary uses. Its not for street (M s for me) or Sports (D5)....but if IQ can be leveraged ...I will try the S .

It would not be my pick (cost aside) for seascapes on a tripod (although it does very well and has the advantage of great weather proofing ). One of my friends shoots an Alpa 12STC with the IQ3 100 ....thats my idea of a perfect seascape system . Using the electronic shutter was a game changer for his system . But WOW that Iq3 100 is darn expensive !

Each of the major systems has a “niche “ and I think the Leica S has a good one . Customer continues to be a bad joke and should cause many potential buyers to go elsewhere . The sensor would benefit from an upgrade
and more pixels and PLEASE improve the AF system . But don t try to be all things to all photographers STICK TO THE PLAN .

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

With electronic devices, features are often free. Just as an example, if you open a modern camera you find one or two big chips, they have fancyful name like Beyonz, Expeed. Those are ASICs purpose built for that camera. Video would be a part of that ASIC and those ASICs are often used over a line of cameras. Stripping out video would make those ASICs much more expensive. That would mean two production runs, double amount of testing.

You can add a microphone costing 1$ and a red button for recording and you have video.

For professional usage, video is often a requirement. So, video is essentially as close as you get to a free lunch.

Just to say, Hasselblad H6D 100c makes beautiful 4K video.

Best regards
Erik

Clearly the design should reflects the anticipated usage of the target market . Personally I prefer equipment that has a tight design specification ...for example rangefinders don t do video . I also enjoy equipment that is beautifully made ...Leica ,Alpa,HB and will favor equipment I like over “Best specifications” .

The S hits the sweet spot for me when I think of travel/landscape/seascape and family . I can shoot my grandkids at the beach with a 100/2 sum micron , a little league baseball game using the 300/4.5 HB handheld and be happy with sunset at pier messing with the ND filters,tripod and a set of near perfect wide angles . . So it aligns well with my primary uses. Its not for street (M s for me) or Sports (D5)....but if IQ can be leveraged ...I will try the S .

It would not be my pick (cost aside) for seascapes on a tripod (although it does very well and has the advantage of great weather proofing ). One of my friends shoots an Alpa 12STC with the IQ3 100 ....thats my idea of a perfect seascape system . Using the electronic shutter was a game changer for his system . But WOW that Iq3 100 is darn expensive !

Each of the major systems has a “niche “ and I think the Leica S has a good one . Customer continues to be a bad joke and should cause many potential buyers to go elsewhere . The sensor would benefit from an upgrade
and more pixels and PLEASE improve the AF system . But don t try to be all things to all photographers STICK TO THE PLAN .

 

[Bernard]

Erik,

Zeiss had a series of articles on high resolution photography in their old Camera Lens News newsletter, which may still be available on their site. One of their findings, which seemed counter-intuitive, was that they sometimes achieved higher resolution with a video-style fluid tripod head than with a heavier solid head. It makes sense when you think about it, a fluid head will dampen natural vibration better. All object vibrate at certain frequencies, and attaching them to a heavy tripod won't stop that (although it may change the resonant frequency of the camera-tripod combination).

That's not to say that any type of camera is better, just that it's a more complex issue than most people realize. A camera can be perfectly sharp using one lens/tripod/shutter speed combination, and blurry if a variable is changed.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I am perfectly aware of that.

Just to give an example. Accelerating the mirror gives an angular momentum and retarding it gives the inverted angular momentum. The mirror accelerates and retards before the exposure. I read an article stating that you could suspend a camera elastically and the acceleration of the mirror would cancel out. But, once you put the camera on a tripod, vibrations would be transferred to the tripod and dampened, so full cancellation would not be possible.

But, it is realistic to assume that anything that moves is a source of vibrations. With an EVF using EFCS there is simply nothing that moves before exposures, assuming the lens is stopped down. So, vibration will not be a problem.

My Alpha 77 and Alpha 99 cameras were remarkably vibration free, even when used with an 800 mm lens on a not very stable tripod.

On the other hand, I had some first hand experience with the Pentax 67. The shutter was a culprit with that camera. The mirror probably caused issues, too, but I was always using the Pentax 67 with MLU.

Comparing old film based devices and digital systems we need to keep in mind that in the old times the only way to see the image detail in film was to use a microscope with at least 40X magnification. With digital we just hit the 1:1 button and see all the detail the sensor can resolve.



The example I have referred to earlier is an interesting one. If we use 50% MTF as acceptance criteria, the canon 5DsR would achieve around 58 lp/m (?), without MLU we would get into 22-38 lp/mm. Keep in mind that these data are linear, so if we assume that 58 lp/mm corresponds to 50MP, using the camera without MLU would yield (22/58)^2 * 50 -> 7 MP to (38/58)^2 * 50 -> 29 MP. The values are as far as I understand measured in different directions.

Best regards
Erik

Erik,

Zeiss had a series of articles on high resolution photography in their old Camera Lens News newsletter, which may still be available on their site. One of their findings, which seemed counter-intuitive, was that they sometimes achieved higher resolution with a video-style fluid tripod head than with a heavier solid head. It makes sense when you think about it, a fluid head will dampen natural vibration better. All object vibrate at certain frequencies, and attaching them to a heavy tripod won't stop that (although it may change the resonant frequency of the camera-tripod combination).

That's not to say that any type of camera is better, just that it's a more complex issue than most people realize. A camera can be perfectly sharp using one lens/tripod/shutter speed combination, and blurry if a variable is changed.

 

[jerome_m]

One of their findings, which seemed counter-intuitive, was that they sometimes achieved higher resolution with a video-style fluid tripod head than with a heavier solid head. It makes sense when you think about it, a fluid head will dampen natural vibration better. All object vibrate at certain frequencies, and attaching them to a heavy tripod won't stop that (although it may change the resonant frequency of the camera-tripod combination).

I would say that the reason is that video heads are better constructed than photo heads, because they do not need to be set to portrait mode. I normally use a video head (non fluid) if I need a very stable yet light tripod in landscape mode.